"Why did they let flight 77 hit the reinforced side of the Pentagon?"
The infamous statement by Vice President Cheney "Of course, the orders still stand" deals with this issue - click here . The Air Force was authorized to shoot down UAL Flight 93, and any others like it. But AA Flight 77 had already impacted the Pentagon. So to use your terms, they would not have let AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon (reinforced side or not), had they the opportunity.
And contrary to popular Truther myth, there was no air defense zone surrounding the Pentagon or Washington. Does anyone have a schematic or something similar that they wish to share on these defenses on the morning of 9/11? Do you have any empirical proof of even their existence? - click here
One of the benefits of the "Peace Dividend" is that we no longer "needed" to maintain such silly systems. Therefore, we no longer had such systems - to include a Tactical Air Command or TAC that had aircraft and fighters waiting on the tarmac ready to take off on a moment's notice. TAC and Strategic Air Command or SAC were combined in 1992 to form the Air Combat Command (ACC). There were fewer than 10 aircraft ready to roll on 9/11 to intercept inbound and unidentified aircraft. If you think otherwise, then you've been watching too many action movies.
"Why were there so many reports of molten steel or bombs/explosions?"
The existence of molten metal at the base of the debris piles has never been proven, aside from anecdotal recollections made by workers' statements and a handful of misinterpreted photographs - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm . While the metals were certainly hot or incandescent, no tangible evidence exists to suggest it was molten.
However and as NIST states in its "Fact Sheet – Answers to FAQs" (August 30, 2006), "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing," - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm .
The real question, then, is what were the ignition and the fuel sources within the debris piles that fed the fires and permitted temperatures high enough to cause steel to incandesce? My thought is that the ignition and initial heat were caused by the heat of compression, not unlike a diesel engine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine . Taking 110 stories and compressing it into 10 stories will certainly heat things up via compression. The sustained heat and fires for weeks afterwards was probably caused by the combustibles embedded in the debris piles, not unlike an underground dump fire - http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-attack/articles/349747/ .
The references to bomb and/or explosions were anecdotal, as well. It sounded like a bomb exploding. No one has ever come forward to say they saw a bomb or that they saw a bomb actually explode. Similarly, what does the swinging back gate of a dump truck sound like to you as it slams shut, if you're a quarter-mile away? "That sounded like an explosion!" - click here and http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm .
The structures were experiencing massive and shifting dynamic loads; loads they were not designed to carry that resulted in plates buckling, bolts popping, and welds shearing prior to the actual collapses. All of these actions sound like explosions. Eyewitnesses reported that even the falling bodies impacting the concrete or pavement sounded like explosions!
"Why did Jeb Bush prepare to declare martial law Sep 7th?"
Florida Executive Order 01-261 detailed "a state of emergency" and not the imposition of "martial law". While some Truthers want to equate the terms, this is not the case. Here Mr. Caleb is equating a "state of emergency" with "martial law". Although a state of emergency does remove powers from the individual (e.g., mandatory evacuations), martial law uses the military to assume management of civilian tasks (e.g., policing, judicial implementation, sanitation, etc...) - click here .
If you read the text of the Executive Order's Sections, the National Guard is tasked to provide assistance (training to Florida Law Enforcement or FDLE) and support ONLY in responding to an emergency and not the automatic imposition of martial law.
"Section 1.
"Based upon the foregoing, I hereby find that the public welfare requires that the Florida National Guard train to support law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters and to provide training support to law-enforcement personnel and community-based organizations relating to counter drug operations.
"Section 2.
"I hereby delegate to The Adjutant General of the State of Florida all necessary authority, within approved budgetary appropriations or grants, to order members of the Florida National Guard into active service, as defined by Section 250.27, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of training to support law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters and to provide training support to law-enforcement personnel and community-based organizations relating to counter drug operations.
"Section 3.
"The Florida National Guard may order selected members on to state active duty for service to the State of Florida... to assist FDLE in performing port security training and inspections. Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is 'extraordinary support to law enforcement'..."
No where in the text is there a mention made of martial law. In fact, at no point following 9/11 did President Bush or Governor Bush declare martial law. So, what's even the point of this question – to question serendipity?
"Why did they fail to escalate the numerous warnings?"
This is a good question, and I believe it should be further reviewed and answered. I don't think, though, that the intelligence agencies knew the "what", "when", possibly "how", and "where" of the attacks. The agencies DO appear, though, to have known that "something" was going to happen and that al-Qaeda was behind that "something".
"What were these supposed military operations on Sep. 11th about?"
There are all kinds of exercises – AIREXs, JTFEXs, CAXs, CPXs, FTXs, TTXs, etc... There was only one (1) military exercise that was underway or active on 9/11 – Operation Northern Guardian ( click here ), which was limited to northern Canada and Alaska and NOT the Continental United States or CONUS.
Two other military exercises were planned for 9/11 – Global Guardian ( click here ) and Vigilant Guardian ( click here ) – but never commenced officially at their respective and scheduled start times because of the "real-world" attacks associated with 9/11.
There was a National Reconnaissance Office (part of the DoD) Site Recover Plan (SRP) drill conducted in Virginia. The scenario involved a small, prop-driven plane crashing into one of the office towers there due to mechanical failure ( click here ). This drill was evaluating the group's ability to implement its Business Continuity Plans (BCPs), following an incident that triggers its plan. Once the 9/11 attacks were announced, the NRO immediately canceled the drill.
And lastly, Operation Tripod was entering day two of a multi-day drill on distributing medicines to a metropolitan New York City. The City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) conducted the drill, which included joint interaction with FBI and FEMA representatives. Once the 9/11 attacks were announced, the OEM immediately canceled the drill and used the drill's staging site (Pier 92) as its alternate Emergency Operations Center (EOC) when WTC 7 was evacuated ( click here ).
So, here we had three (3) exercises that were on-going and two (2) scheduled but not started. Three (3) of the exercises involved NORAD but only one (1) was actually drilled on 9/11. Hmmm. How many drills does the military conduct at that level in a given year? The number is many hundreds - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/ex.htm . Therefore, is it conceivable that three multiple day drills might be run concurrently for several days? I'd say that's a "yes".
The other drills were conducted (1) by DoD at the facility/functional group level – not at the service or joint service level and (2) by the NYC OEM at the city level with inputs from the state and Federal levels. These two drills had nothing to do with the military drills that were scheduled previously. Thus, was it probable that these drills, at completely different planning levels compared to the military operations, could have been scheduled on the same day? Again, that'd be a "yes"!
"Why did we torture suspects and base the 9/11 Commission Report on this?"
As to the question of "why", we needed information quickly given the many "unknowns" surrounding the attacks; you wouldn't want another one to happen again on your watch, would you? And information gained from "extended interrogations techniques" (or "torture" as Truthers label it) isn't by default untrue. And the information provided by those "tortures" was not the sole source of evidence used to draft the 9/11 Commission Report (i.e., about 25% of the footnotes in the Report reference CIA interrogations) - click here .
From the linked article:
"'Ultimately, we chose to publicly release our understanding of what took place, based on everything we had access to,' said [Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission executive director], adding that the Commission did explain its feelings in a largely ignored explanatory box in the report on the value of the interrogations.
"According to the note: 'Our access to them (the operatives) has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked.'"
I admit that this is a weakness of the 9/11 Commission Report, but this does not require that the "baby be thrown out with the bathwater". Any new evidence obtained should always be referenced against the existing testimonies for either confirmation or denial.
"Why did NIST avoid a controlled demolition hypothesis as a possibly explanation for building 7, and how could they not be aware of the reports of molten steel?"
NIST responded to these questions SPECIFICALLY in its "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)" - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm . While I could offer you my opinion on the matter, I'll let you form your own based upon the answers provided by NIST at the referenced link:
"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
"The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
"Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).
"Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
"13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)-who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards-found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
"NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
"How did jet fuel melt steel or cause the towers to collapse? Have tests been done, are there references to evidence to support a thorough explanation?"
Again, NIST responded to these questions SPECIFICALLY in its "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)" - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm . I'll let you form your own opinion based upon the answers provided by NIST at the referenced link:
"7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren't hot enough to do so?
"OR
"7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
"However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
"UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was "certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours" is simply not true."
With respect to the question of whether or not "tests" have been done and are there references to evidence to support a "thorough explanation", I'll link to the 10,000+ page NIST report entitled, "Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster" - http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm . You are, of course, more than welcome to read the report and form your own conclusions as to its thoroughness. OR... you can ignore the report and visit a few Truther web sites and KNOW that 9/11 was an "inside job". All it takes to accomplish this feat is a commitment to intellectual laziness.
"Why did they effectively block an investigation for a year while allowing evidence to be removed and destroyed?"
ASCE, EPA, FEMA, NTSB, and USGS (to name a few) immediately began to document the results of the collapses and aircraft crashes and initiated investigations into the collapses and crashes. Immediate means there was no delay from the point of impact. Both the House and the Senate proposed Congressional reviews of the events of 9/11 early on but required time to staff the investigating bodies and assemble the available data to determine the best course of action. Finally, the Administration delayed "any" investigations due to the on-going combat activities in Afghanistan and for the possible confusion that could ensue, if one was conducted concurrent to the Congressional investigations - click here .
Whether these were "effective" or not is based upon one's opinion of the matters. Regardless, there were compelling reasons for the delay in conducting an investigation of the size and complexity of the 9/11 Commission.
"How can we vote intelligently in this rigged election without knowing what really happened?"
This is not related directly to 9/11 and, therefore, should not be answered here. To do so would only add confusion to the 9/11 concerns by linking it to voting intelligently in an assumed and "rigged" election. I believe the question displays inherent biases and is highly subjective with respect to being answered via the scientific method.
And thus, once again, we see that the questions ARE the "truth". Why do Truthers only ask the questions rather than attempt to answer them? Hmmm...
